the catholic basilica here in washington, d.c. vice president joe biden is one of the dig any tears attending. you can watch it live tomorrow morning starting at 11:00 eastern. coming up tonight on c-span 3 we're showing you american history tv in primetime. american historical association annual conference with panels on the history of the death penalty, 1916 election and history of terrorism. that's tonight here on c-span 3 at 8:00 eastern. every weekend on american history tv on c-span 3 feature programs that tell the american story. some of the highlights for this weekend include saturday afternoon at 2:00 eastern, president woodrow wilson nominated boston lawyer to the u.s. supreme court. he became the first jewish justice to sit on the nation's highest court. in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of his nomination,

the university in massachusetts hosted a panel including supreme court justice ruth baden ginsburg to discuss his contributions to american democracy. at 6:55 professors who study early american history and specializes in 20th century discusses partisanship. sunday morning at 10:00 from the 2000 campaign a south carolina republican primary debate featuring george w. bush, arizona senator john mccain and alan keys. cnn hosted the event in columbia and larry king moderated. governor bush won in south carolina halting senator mccain's momentum and went on to secure the republican nomination. and at 6:00 american artifacts looks at selections of objects left at the vietnam memorial wall including letters, photographs, artwork and medals. the collection includes about

400,000 items all stored at the national park service museum resource center in maryland. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to c-span.org. this weekend the c-span city's tour hosted by our charter communications partner takes you to greenville, south carolina to explore the city's history and literary xño(u&ture. on book tv. >> in 1939 september of 1939 when europe went to war, our allies, primarily england and france looked to washington, d.c. for goods and material they needed. washington, d.c.ing looked at the textile world and all of a sudden government contracting came funneling into this area asking the mills here to begin producing for the war effort, initially for our allies and of course for the united states as

well. >> on american history tv -- >> so we're standing right here and this really was a pretty nasty spot. hard to believe now looking at it one of the best parks in the country but this really was a very depressed nasty place and it's a great story of how a community can get behind a park and start to appreciate and cherish its river and its waterfall again. >> watch the c-span cities tour saturday at noon eastern. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. the c-span cities tour working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. the 4th circuit court of appeals heard oral argument over which rest rooms transgender students should use pinpoint deals with a 16-year-old born

female who identifies as male who was allowed to use the boys restroom until boys complained. this is about 40 minutes. thank you, your honors. may it please the court, my name is is joshua block and i represent the plaintiff. over the past 15 years, the vast majority of courts have recognized that discriminating against someone because they are transgender is a form of discrimination on the basis of sex. under title 9, that means it's perfectly fine for schools to have separate rest rooms for boys and girls but they have to let transgender boys and girls use rest rooms, too. the only way they that can happen if they can use rest rooms consistent with their gender identity like every other student. the school has said g can use the girls room, but it's impossible to take that seriously. it makes no sense whatsoever for the board to say it's going to protect student privacy by

taking a transgender boy who is on testosterone and place him in the girl's rest room. before g transitioned, girls objected to his presence in the rest room because they accurately perceived him to be a boy. no one seriously thinks that having -- >> do the boys object? the girls objected apparently. you are pointing out that that's significant. apparently the boys objected when he went to the boys rest room. is that allowed to be taken into account? >> i'm saying the school board's arguments are inconsistent. if the rationale is privacy -- >> you have made -- you made in your brief is that he can't go into the women's rest room because he doesn't feel welcome there. the women ostracize him and don't want him there. they basically -- some said that they didn't want him in the rest room.

my question is if that is a meaningful fact, is it also a meaningful fact that the boys say the same thing in their rest room? >> your honor, it's a meaningful fact and that privacy issue can be taken into account. but the right way do that and there are wrong ways to do that. schools can and should have privacy protection for everyone urinal stall. what schools can't do is banish transgender students from the rest rooms entirely because students object to their presence. >> if we don't recognize our -- i think that's the way you say it. can you prevail on your title 9 claim in. >> absolutely, your honor. >> how? the plain text of title 9 is extremely broad. it covers all facilities entirely.

it would prohibit separate rest rooms, separate dormitories. that's why they had that in the text. >> you know, the thing concerns me a little bit is the argument between ambiguity and not being ambiguous. which restroom would a same-sex student use under your argument? >> your honor, i think that's a great question for the department of education. >> we would like to hear your answer. if it's ambiguous, the decision goes one way. if it's not ambiguous, it goes the other way. >> it would depend on what gender identity they live their lives in accordance with. it's a very accurate point that there are -- there's an article about the uterus transplants for

women born without uteruses. their gender identity is female. they live as women. it's not like the categories of male and female always correspond to everyone's internal reproductive organs. >> which rest room with a person who has undergone a sex change use? >> well, your honor, i think they would use rest room consistent with their gender identity. which is whatever gender they live in in accordance with all aspects of their lives. your honor, i think it's important to remember that the structure of title 9 is that congress wanted the agency to make these distinctions. there's no bfoq exception in title 9 like in title 7. that's because the sponsor said that would be too big a loophole. when people asked what about rest rooms, senator bide didn't say, don't worry, rest rooms aren't covered. he said, the agency can address those questions in its

discretion. so the entire statute is structured so the agency draws the distinctions about what sports teams can women try out for, what conditions do you need to have separate sex segregated rest rooms. the courts don't weigh on their own is the volleyball team different than the football team? these are agency policy making questions. the agency is the democratically accountable branch and congress can overrule the agency and has done so in the past. even if it applies, the judge's decision is extremely important here. he interpreted the plain text of a different exception that allowed schools to block women from trying out for all-male contact sports. the school argued that means the that contact sports are exempt. the judge said no, you have to interpret that narrowly. it says it allows women to be prohibited from trying out. once you are on the team, the

school can't discriminate against you then. the baseline here is all forms of disparate treatment are prohibited unless there's permission for it. what the regulation that doe passed is it said you can have separate rest rooms. you can have rest rooms for one sex if they are equivalent for the other sex. two things it doesn't address. it doesn't say you can have sex segregated rest rooms but not let transgender people use them. they have to use one of the rest rooms. it didn't say where transgender persons should go if their gender identity conflicts with their sex assigned at birth. >> let me ask you to relate this to a locker room situation. i know the locker room is not at issue in this case. but it's in the policy and it's in the regulation. the regulation says that you can have separate locker rooms based on sex.

where would the intersex person go when a school has a men's locker room and a women's -- >> which one? >> either one. >> they would go to the locker room consistent with their gender identity. the department of education has -- >> they are anatomically male and they identify as a female, they would go to the female locker room, even though they have the genitalia of a male? is that your answer? >> yes, it is, your honor. but that's also because it's important to understand there's a lot of privacy protections in locker rooms, too. it's important that -- >> well, i don't know -- i've been in locker rooms my whole life. you have open showers and open spaces. it's a more exposed environment. >> not at this high school.

you have separate shower and changing areas for all the schools. that's actually part of the virginia department of schools guidelines for how locker rooms should be set up. it is important that we're talking about these policy making questions that locker rooms are different than when i went to school. different from when my parents went to school. these issues can and are addressed on the ground in different ways. it's hard -- >> let me ask this question. it's sort of -- these are logically difficult questions. sticking with the locker room hypothetical, which raises the point more clearly, you said that if the person had male genitalia but identified as a female, that person should be allowed in the female locker room.

that's because an aspect of sex is the psychological. there's the physical and psychological. they both make up a person's sex or gender. in most people, the person identifies with his anatomical arrangement. but in some people that's not so. so we have a disparity. you picked in order to give your answer, you picked the psychological identification of the person going into the women's locker room. could the school instead of picking the psychological pick the anatomical criteria as the reason for separating locker rooms and saying, well, since he is anatomically male, he should go the to male locker room? legally under the regulation. >> well, if the department of education hadn't given its own interpretation -- >> i want you to read the regulation. >> your honor, on its face the regulation doesn't answer that.

i think -- >> for us selecting the psychological criteria and opposed to the physical criteria for determining which locker room the student goes to. >> with respect, i think under our deference, the question isn't what the court would select. >> still, we need to know. don't we? if the district court got it totally wrong, we can't make that assessment unless we have some idea to which way we're supposed to go. >> you know, your honor, i think the reality is that across the country transgender students use rest rooms consistent with their -- locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. no one knows they are transgender in many instances. they often view the male anatomy as deeply shameful. they are not going to be -- it's not something that trans kids --

they have a sense of privacy, too. you did draw this dichotomy between psychological and physical. >> they are linked. there's a divergence in a transgender child who finds himself or herself with one gender or one sex physical apparatus reproductive organs and identifies with the other. that divergence creates a problem. your answers say the school should be focusing on the psychological, what the person identifies with, as opposed to what a person's physical anatomy is. i'm just wondering what gives you the basis to make that interpretation under the statute as opposed to the school's interpretation to use the anatomical difference? >> to address this dichotomy though, as a result of hormones, there are physiological

differences between g and non-transgender women. >> you are not taking care of my clear question, which is somebody who is physically one sex and identifies with the other. >> yes, i understand. >> the definition as the psychological definition of this. >> yeah. you know, all i'm saying is what someone's physical body is also very much affected by their hormones. there are -- that is a real live physical component. but on this -- what gives me the right to say they should use gender identity instead of sex assigned at birth, you know, what basis do i have for saying that, you know, that's what the department of education says based on its expert agency status. it's the one that's a policy making entity. it's the democratically accountable branch. if anyone disagrees with -- if the school disagrees, they can file a rule making petition. congress can overrule them. >> i don't read that in the

rule. i have the rule before me. it says the recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room and shower facilities on the basis of sex. such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for the other sex. that's the regulation. the regulation says the school can make a decision based on sex. and have separate facilities. now, your argument i gather is that here we have a sex as a complex word and includes both the physical and the psychological. when you have it different, then the question is, what does the statute say. i don't think the statute addresses that. >> the statute doesn't address it. as you said, at best there are two alternatives.

>> if you abate -- you can make a distinction based on sex. so now if you take both the psychological and the physical, we have a third category where that's divergence. you could provide a separate facility for that third category like a unisex bathroom. i'm not sure that's what you are arguing. >> your honor, if the regulation doesn't actually address it, then the default is it's prohibited. that's the inertia is in favor of the person enforcing title 9. you need an affirmative exception. the fact that a regulation is silent cuts against the school board. it doesn't cut against our side. >> you didn't argue for transgender status to be a

suspect classification. why not? >> i see my time has expired. >> i will let you answer that question. >> we didn't because transgender status also is discrimination on the basis of sex. there's a big body of precedence saying it gets scrutiny. we don't disagree it's a suspect class. but i don't think you need to find an independent suspect class status. >> thank you, mr. block. you have some time on rebuttal. mr. corrigan? >> may it please the court, i'm david corrigan. along with my partner, jeremy capps, who is the author of the brief we represent for the school board. we are here to argue for affirming the dismissal of the

title 9 claim ordering the dismissal of equal protection claim and affirming the decision to deny the preliminary injunction. our position is that there was no discrimination -- >> on that -- as a practical point, the district court explicitly said it wanted to hear more on the equal protection claim. and preserve that for trial. you are asking us to make a ruling before the district court analyzes that, i guess, based on -- i'm not thinking about jurisdiction. i'm wondering of the wisdom of us doing this. you are arguing we can do it as well as the district court? >> yes, sir. because it's intertwined. >> that's another issue, whether it is. i think your title 9 case is with the injunction.

>> the injunction is based on -- it seems to me that the trial judge based it on both the fact that the title 9 was dismissed and he got into the balancing of the hardships in deciding there was -- the plaintiff had not carried their burden in establishing the hardship. it's another reason i read the court as eliminating -- >> i didn't mean to interrupt you. >> yes, sir. >> on the question of the balance, i'm a little puzzled by the district court's decision, because things were proceeding -- the status quo ante was changed by the policy, correct? >> it's a prohibiting injunction. we agreed that's what it was. >> so i'm not clear why the

balance of hardships favors your client rather than the plaintiff. >> even under either scenario with the preliminary injunction, you are looking at a discretion -- abuse of discretion standard, clear error with respect to the facts. so we have -- if we talk first our argument primarily at the lower level is we should win on both. in getting into the balance of hardships, what i understood the court to say -- this is what's on the record -- is that this plaintiff is a female who has a gender dysphoria condition and identifies male and had significant distress well before anything having do with rest rooms came up and continued to have that distress. and that there was an

insufficient -- the facts in support of the plaintiff's side of that amounted to three paragraphs in the psychologist's report and the self-serving declaration of the plaintiff about the concerns that he had. on the other hand -- on the other side -- >> but the denial of the preliminary injunction changed the status quo, did it not? >> i don't know that it changed the status quo. i think that the -- >> surely, you must know. >> the young man -- g, the plaintiff, had been using the rest room. >> that's the status quo. >> after they passed the resolution, he was no longer allowed to use the rest room. >> so the denial of the preliminary injunction changed the status quo. >> it did. >> okay. >> i don't quite understand that. i thought -- this is just on the facts.

i thought that the school adopted a policy which is at challenge here. >> yes. >> and built three rest rooms, unisex rest rooms. >> correct. >> and that the policy is the status quo. they changed earlier. they had him using the men's rest room. and then because of complaints, they conducted a meeting and adopted the policy which is at issue here. the policy says that the person using the common rest rooms will follow their biological makeup and anybody can use the unisex rest rooms. >> correct. >> that's a challenge. that's -- judge davis is right that the ante before the policy was he was using the bathroom. but the policy was not prompted by the lawsuit, was it? that was changed before the lawsuit? >> the policy existed before the lawsuit.

the policy what occurred with the policy is this. the policy is a statement of existing situation, which we have two sets of rest rooms. we have female rest rooms to be used by people of the female sex. we have male rest rooms to be used by male individuals of the male sex. then we have a third alternative available for all students. that's one of the important facts in the case. the policy doesn't say that. but the plaintiff has pled as -- >> the question is that gg be allowed to use the boys rest room. that's the full scope of the injunction requested. >> and the -- >> which is what the state of affairs was before the policy and before the lawsuit. correct? >> gg was using the boys rest room until the policy was passed. gg is now not using the boys rest room. >> what harm occurred during the

seven weeks that he used the boys rest room? >> on this record, the concerns that were raised -- we go to -- precedent in this court in terms of body privacy, that's the concern. the question is, did the policy in any way discriminate. the answer is it did not. it did not because it put people in the same situation they had always been in, the male going to the male rest room, female going to the female rest room and a third alternative for anyone including gg. >> what was the harm? >> the harm that was expressed -- there was concern expressed by parents of students about the -- the privacy interest of their students. that was the privacy interest was the primary concern of the school board in enforcing the existing policy of boys in the

boys room, girls in the girls room and the availability of the third option. >> the children of any complaining parents have access to. >> they do. as does g. >> so i come back to the denial of the preliminary injunction changed the status quo in a way that actually ignores your client's effort to address the challenge by creating these unisex, private rest rooms. >> i don't think it -- i don't see how it ignored the effort -- >> well, if your argument is that there were parents of certain students who were concerned, the board addressed that concern by creating these private rest rooms. and so any of those students whose parents came to the board

seeking redress now have access to the privacy that they claim they need and want. >> the first aspect -- i understand the court's point. the first aspect of a preliminary injunction is whether the plaintiff will win on the merits. >> let's move to that. how do you assess the district court's wanting to hear more about equal protection and yet denying the preliminary injunction? i'm not suggesting definitively that that's inconsistent or contradictory. but the judge wants to hear more of this case. and yet, by denying the preliminary injunction, the judge changed the status quo. >> the standard for -- >> there's -- at least there's a hint of an inconsistency there. >> i understand what your honor is suggesting. and i understand the inconsistency that you are concerned about.

the question is whether or not the plaintiff is likely to succeed. let's use equal protection claim since he ruled on the title 9 claim. our position was and is that all students are treated the same. there are two choices, rest rooms associated with their sex and single stall rest rooms. transgender is not a suspect class. none of the case law that plaintiffs rely on from the price waterhouse area deals with a situation similar to this. none -- all that case law deals with is non-conforming behavior and then some type of employment action primarily undertaken against a male who wasn't acting in a male manner and was punished. the likelihood of success on equal protection clause is not strong. the question is whether the gloucester school board policy providing separate rest rooms plus single stall rest rooms for all students serves the interest in protecting the safety and privacy of the students. if we get past our initial point

there never was any discrimination. there never was discrimination because the same policy was in existence from the beginning, which is boys in the boys room, girls in the girls room and here is a third option. it would be discrimination to say to g, you can't go in the girls room. that would be consistent with the price waterhouse set of facts. you can't go in the girls room. that would have been something that we couldn't do. the notion on other side of the case that you have remained -- you have kept that alive, i don't think the school board had a choice. you have to allow this individual to use the girls room if he so chooses. >> your argument is rooted in this notion that some wise person said biology is destiny. but in fact, it's neurobiology, isn't it, that's destiny. >> i don't have an opinion on that. our belief is that sex equals male and female.

>> of course that's your position. but this is 2016. this is 2016. >> yes, sir. >> so the question is, what is the meaning of sex in year 2016? >> our position is that the meaning of sex is the -- based on the person's genitalia, based on their -- what they were born with. could it change? >> do you have expert evidence in the record? >> no expert evidence in the record. >> the judge didn't require you to come forward with anything? >> well, you have seen the record. the record is pretty sparse on these points. >> are you going to be able to find a reputable psychologist or neuroscientist or psychiatrist to support your position that in 2016 all sex is is biology? >> i don't --

>> without regard -- >> i haven't looked into that, because we are nowhere near that in this case. i don't think it matters. i think the reason it doesn't matter is the question is whether or not this policy as implemented violates title 9 or violates equal protection clause. it doesn't. >> if we decide that the department's regulation is entitled to our deference, does that change the calculus on the likelihood of success on the merits? >> first of all, we would argue that it's not entitled to deference. the word sex is ambiguous. >> the assumption is we might do that. >> i think we still have a chance to win the case under that even if you give it deference on the basis that the way that the ocr has interpreted this is to replace the word sex with the word gender identity. and that's not a fair reading. and i think -- >> price waterhouse has largely already done that. >> i don't think --

>> and the price waterhouse -- i thought we were past that it means no more and no less than biology. >> again -- >> i thought we were concerned about the stigmatizing affects of stereotypical approaches to gender roles. if you talk about gender roles, it's impossible to talk about -- not talk about gender identity, isn't it? >> yes. the point is though that those cases -- price waterhouse and the cases that follow it, what you are dealing with is a situation where it's a too masculine female, too feminine male and you are dealing with you cannot discriminate on that basis. that's the law. there's no question about that. that's not this situation. our situation here is it's a school board with children from k through 12, age 6 to age 18. they have a policy of allowing girls in the girls room and boys

in the boys room. in their wisdom provide a third option for anyone who is uncomfortable going to either spot. the question is, does that violate the equal protection clause or does that violate title 9. it does not. that's our -- they are our most significant argument is very simply that point. i don't think if you start getting into this complicated where are we today in 2016, i think that's some other case. that's somewhere down the road. the question is today on these facts with this scenario with the concerns -- price waterhouse, those are adults in the workplace. that's different. this is children in a school system. the right of privacy of children in the school system is much more significant than it would be for the bathroom in this courtroom, for instance. that matters. so this school system, the question is whether or not what they decided to do violated either title 9 or equal protection.

our argument is that it did not. that's our best argument. that's our main point coming here before the court today. >> i guess my concern is, you may be right. but again, i'm sort of stuck on the notion that the denial of the preliminary injunction -- in effect, the denial of the preliminary injunction here was a grant of an affirmative injunction to the board. i mean, it's kind of flipped. normally, a party coming in to district court seeking a preliminary injunction is seeking to change the status quo. >> by the time the plaintiff came to court -- >> or maintain the status quo. but by here, the district court's action actually changed the status quo. again, with regard -- i understand the policy was the animating legal action in play here.

but down here on the ground, the way people were living with each other and the way the school was being operated without any complaints for a good while at least -- i'm not sure there were any complaints by the students to the school officials. this came from the parents. >> the record is that at the school there were no incidents. >> no incidents. no disruption. things were proceeding at pace. and then everything changed. for gg certainly. >> for gg, for everyone else everything remained the same there was a boys room and girls room and you had those two options. gg and everyone else then received the third option that's available. i think the court's argument would be stronger if the school had not given the third option, because i think that you would

be then saying you have to go back -- you have to go to the girls room. they're not saying you have to. they are saying you can go to the girls room but you have this other option. for that reason, it remained -- what remained in place was not really a substantial change from the original situation. >> but there's no stigmatizing impact on anyone but gg. in using what you refer to as the third option. >> i disagree. if someone went in there, there could be potentially stigmatizing interest on anyone who went to use that rest room. who knows whether they would feel stigmatized in some way, shape or form for being -- >> what would be the source? >> suppose people were pro transgender use of the boys room and that was the policy and then people who started using that, there might be a stigmatizing interest, you are against transgender, you are somebody uncomfortable with that.

to me that he would be a potentially stigmatizing record. our major point is the question is whether or not what was done is a violation of title 9 or equal protection. and it is not. >> if gg had a sex change operation, would you allow him to use the boys rest room? >> my understanding of what the position would be -- i'm going to read the policy. >> uses the word biological. >> shall be limited to corresponding biological genders. is what it says. i would say if you change your biological sex, then would you be allowed to use the rest room of your new biological sex. that's what it seems to suggest to me.

>> my understanding is that that surgery really -- i'm no expert. but that surgery involves a series of surgeries. it's not a surgery. it's a series of surgeries. when does one become a biological whatever. >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> how would this policy apply to someone who was in the course of that surgical therapy? >> i don't know. >> you don't know? >> i don't know how that would -- i would be speculating on what the school board -- how they would interpret their policy. >> they didn't discuss that? >> not to my knowledge. >> did they get expert input -- >> there's nothing in the record about expert input. i don't know if it's in the record. a case in pennsylvania was informative to the school board certainly in terms of the decision. it felt like it was legally in a

solid position. >> thank you, mr. corrigan. mr. block? >> thank you, your honor. two important points i want to clear up. one is the notion that boys were objecting to g's presence. we have no idea what the complaints were. they have never been shown to us, described to us or to the court. from looking at the school board meetings, the vast majority of complaints were about people worried that in the hypothetical future some boy could pretend to be a girl and go into the locker rooms. the notion that these complaints were coming from boys who were uncomfortable with g is not -- it's not in evidence on the motion for one thing. a second point i wanted to make is -- this goes to the issue of what the school board knew and some of the harder line drawing questions. this was something being handled by administrators on the ground who didn't see a problem.

what the school board did is they imposed a categorical rule saying, regardless of the specific facts, regardless of the situation on the ground, school administrators never have the power to do anything but what the school board policy says. so this wasn't like a step by step incremental approach. g didn't come to the school board saying, i want you to pass a new policy saying all transgender kids should use the rest rooms consistent with their gender identity, no exceptions. the school -- >> which is fascinating. because today the best learning tells us that the principal is the ceo. and everything you read these days is what we need in public education are strong principals. this principal was doing it. this principal had the situation under control. had the school operating from all that appears in the record

in a really great way. and then some kind of top-down imposition comes along and disrupts what the principal was managing in a very, very humane and ordinarily way. it's ironic, isn't it? >> i agree, your honor. the principal sponsor of the policy was clear. she said, this isn't about disruption. these students are mature enough to handle it. it's not a disruption issue. it's solely a privacy issue. there wasn't actually some crisis on the ground. there wasn't a mass walk-out from the boys rest rooms. stuff was working. until the school board became involved. your honor talked about the school providing these extra privacy options. they announced that six days before the second school board meeting. obviously, i haven't been able to depose anyone. but my understanding is that they were hoping that would head off the problem. but then six days later, after

parent after parent or random community person after random community person threatened to vote the board out of office, what had previously been three votes suddenly turned into a 5-1 vote. no one gave these alternative arrangements a chance. they jumped from alternative arrangements to a ban without the -- in six days before the rest rooms were installed. if you look at the board meetings, it was never about g. it was always about this will open the door to some future sexual predator could come in and -- they are hypothetical concerns that we know from school districts across the country from l.a. to kentucky never actually materialize. no one is saying that -- there's plenty of room for policies that ask for some sort of confirmation that this is

someone's sincerely held gender identity. g had a carrier letter from his doctor confirming this. no one is suggesting a top-down solution the other way. but in the department of education can obviously issue guidance, too. what the district court ruled is that the regulations -- the regulations mean that g automatically loses. we're not saying the regulations means he automatically wins. we're saying, title 9 means he can't be treated differently on basis of sex. there's not an exception in the regulations that authorizes it. certainly, there's room for additional guidance and plenty of model policies for school boards to look at as well. very briefly, this issue of adults versus schools. title 9 is broader than title 7. schools have a special -- it's important for transgender students, too. we know that a denial of an

equal education is worse than denial of a job. the importance of education cuts in our benefit, not theirs. if your honors don't have any further questions, that's all i have for today. >> thank you. supreme court justice antonin scalia's body is lying in repose today in the court' grapd chamber. he passed away last weekend at the age of 9. the public is allowed into the viewing and c-span has live coverage throughout the day. it will last until 8:00 p.m. eastern opinion justice scalia's funeral is tomorrow and c-span will have live coverage of the funeral mass at the catholic basilica here in washington, d.c. vice president joe biden is one of the dignitaries attending. >> we're showing you american history in primetime.

it's the american historical association conference with discussions on the democratic, and history of terrorism. that's tonight here on c-span 3 at 8:00 eastern. c-span's coverage of the presidential candidates continues this week with campaign events in south carolina and nevada. leading up to the south carolina gop primary and the nevada democratic caucuses on saturday february 20th. our live coverage of the results starts on saturday at 7:30 p.m. eastern with the candidates speeches and your reaction to the results on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. president obama has requested $148 billion next year for the u.s. army and congress is now considering it. army budget director major general thomas updated reporters on what's in that budget plan. this is about 40 minutes.

good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i'm lieutenant colonel. i'm chief of the media relation. it is my honor to introduce major general thomas horlander. following his perception we'll provide you with a few questions, i will moderate the q&a portion of the presentation. we are the first of the services to brief and will be held to a strict 40-minute session to include taking questions. if we don't get to your questions, we encourage you to participate in our budget roundtable tomorrow afternoon, which i'll discuss at the end of today's presentation. please wait for me to call on you when we get to the q&a session. without further adieu, it is my honor to introduce major general horlander. >> good afternoon. it's great to see everybody. i see a few familiar faces. so i'm happy to have the

opportunity to present to you an overview of the united states army's 2017 budget request. i will start by giving you an overview of the army today and spend time providing a second level of detail about the army's request. i start by providing you context. first highlighting the increased instability velocity throughout the world and the magnitude of changes in the missions and operations in the last several years. to keep up with the growing instability in the global security environment. what you see before you is a representation of these changing missions. as you are aware, the president made the decision to train afghan security forces and support ongoing counter terrorism operations. the u.s. army has returned to iraq this past year to lead the

operations in inherent operation mission advise, train and assist the iraqis in combat operations. to assure our nato allies and support the president's european reshurns initiative, u.s. army europe has a large role in supporting european command operations, conducting regional engagement assurance missions and prepositioning equipment set to further deter russian aggression on the european continent. in the pacific the u.s. army continues to engage asia, conducting its third year of pacific pathways. the key regional engagement operations throughout the pacific theater, enhancing the envaluable partnership with our allies in the region. i would assert that what is most important to observe is that all of these operations were very much different or nonexistent one or two years ago and required a greater level of u.s. army ground force involvement.

as you can see from the map before you, a large portion of america's army continues to serve around the world in virtually every corner of the globe and in every combatant commander of area of operation. the current trend is that these numbers are on the rise to support the combative command missions. in the nation's africa command, army soldiers are supporting joint task force operations in the horn of africa and in northern africa. the middle east remains very active and dangerous area of the world with army soldiers deployed or stationed in many of the 20 countries that make up the central command area of responsibility. ongoing operations include the missions in afghanistan and iraq previously described. the multinational force observer mission in egypt and operation spartan shield conducting regional engagements in much of southwest asia. as you can see, a similar level of activity is occurring in the other combatant commanders areas

of responsible as well. when what i ask you to take away is the unpredictability of the global security environment, the growing force presence of u.s. army soldiers across the globe and the integral role that the u.s. army plays in protecting our national security interests at home and abroad. in all of the five evolving security challenges laid out by secretary carter earlier this month, those being the return of great power competition of the resurgent russia and a rising china, the north korean threat to u.s. and our allies. the countering in iranian maligned influence that threatens u.s. friends and allies and defeating terrorism. the u.s. army has a significant role in each of those. these points alone highlight the imperative of having an army that is ready, not just for today's known operations but for those unknown operations of tomorrow that may develop.

to ensure america's army is ready, this requires a full army of predictable and current resourcing from year to year, commencing with the operational needs of the force. the readiness levels required for today's ground forces capable of generating the right level of combat power, requires the total army to be manned, trained, equipped in its equipment in high level readiness and led by the highest leaders we can develop. only then can the army aggress any number of ongoing and emerging missions that may arise while simultaneously having an effective engagement capability with regionally aligned forces and advise and assist capability. through this regionally aligned capability the united states army can shape the strategic security environment with the aim of foregoing any force on force kinetic operations that may develop.

should efforts to shape the environment not yield the intended results, of course we want our nation's army to be the most formidable land force in the world, capable of winning in today's very complex environment requiring capabilities that range from low intensity counter insurgency to conducting major combat operations. it's valuable to start by looking at the army's budget over time and providing commentary that may inform your views of the army's current funding request. as you can see from the chart, the army's budget is both base and overseas contingency operation funding commonly referred to at occu that has been on deflate since 2010 by 1% to 2.5% each year. in the base meant to man, train and equip the nation's army, we spent in the year 2010 at the

highest point in this century $144 billion. as you can see, we have been trending downward since that time. with today's base-funding levels about 12% less than just six years ago, and the army has only been able to maintain that level of funding through the occu flexibility provided by our government. of course, this market decrease in our base funding is partially attributed to the fact that we are a smaller army but i offer that is not only reflection of the fiscal pressures on the defense budget but is also a reflection of the great strurd ship of leaders across the force. likewise, as large contingency operations become smaller the army's occu budget has been reduced to 20% of what it was in 2010. and consistently over the last several years the department has been directed to leverage occu flexibility to help support our readiness requirements.

with the fy-17's budget, the following are the main requests of our request. this budget has the best trained and ready land forces that we can generate. as i eluded to earlier, this requires a balance between army readiness and strength and modernization, a balance that takes years of consistent funding to achieve. before i leave this slide, i want to point out two words. prioritize readiness. as we have sought this top funding level, we ensure our number one priority remain readiness. this remains our commitment to the nation to send its sons and daughters as ready as they can possibly be for the mission they are sent to do. the army's base budget request is $125.1 billion when occu

flexibility is accounted for as part of the bipartisan budget act of 2015. this is less than what was provided in fy-2016, i'm sorry, fy-2016 budget to equip the nation's army and reduce funding levels from the previous year in both our military personnel and our research development and acquisition accounts. this slide represents funding requirements for all three components, the regular army, the national guard and the army reserve. and is a breakout in the aggragate across the major defense appropriations. we will talk about each appropriation in more detail on subsequent slides. i will take this opportunity, however, to point out a couple of items. the army is people. while the army's mill purse represents 40% of the top line, another 60% is used to pay for the civilian workforce bringing

the total personnel to roughly 60% of the total budget. as the army's biggest cost driver, you spend a lot of time with personnel and out the management and have continued to reduce the amount of civilian contracted workforce on par with the draw down of the military force. as you can see, the army's procurement and already tne accounts represents 18% of the entire budget, much less than the historical norm of 20% to 22%. and lastly, you can see that the only growth from fy-'16 to '17 is in funding accounts to generate current readiness. resourcing constraints did not allow us to modernize equipment and facilities at the same pace we sought to minimize to current readiness. this slide provides you a clear picture of military strength levels and how they continue to trend downward as land force

requirements are on the rise. as you can see, the army is reducing its strength in the regular army and reserve component. these strength levels are generally aligned with four-structure reductions as the army reorganizes its brigade combat formation teams and enable enablers. all critical components of the army support to the joint force. a final point on this slide is that while these reductions are spread across the total army, the majority of them are coming out of the operating force as opposed to the institutional army that has already been sized to keep the operation force trained and ready as possible. the military personnel account for a large portion of the army budget. i request funds of just less than a million soldiers. this account covers pay, allowances, recruiting and retention incentives, permanent change station moves and

training primarily in the reserve component. given our projected and strength ramp, you can see our request is the full $1 billion less this year than last year, as you were. almost a full $1 billion less than this year's funding levels. and accounts for the rate increases in the soldiers basic pay, housing allowances and subsistance. now i will transition to the maintenance appropriations. this is the one funding area where we are requesting growth from the current year's budget. starting with the regular army, this 2017 budget request totals $35.4 billion. and seeks to balance readiness across the floors instead of the tiered readiness from previous years. consistent with both the current and future threat environments,

the army's readiness goals are to have two-thirds of its army forces ready at any one time. this readiness includes the necessary resourcing levels to sustain an insulation support largely funded in the army's own accounts. this readiness is more than being prepared for current contingency operation. it includes decisive missions with the capability to conduct major combat operations. this fuller spectrum sustained readiness model is reflected in the army's 19 combat training center rotations for which we are seeking funding. these rotations are focused on decisive action training for both the regular army and the reserve components. the army's request provides for critical funding for engagement activities with our strategic partners for training missions like pacific pathways i mentioned previously. this request will cover the

sustainment of the army's equipment and represents an increase in depo maintenance to bring our accounts to a greater level of repair and prepositions stocks to improve expedition in their force capabilities. it will fund it at 95%. we can only fund 67% of the sustainment requirements. this is consistent funding -- this is a consistent funding level across the entire development of defense and an area of risk for the army as it will exacerbate the amount of backlog that already exists on the existing facilities. the army's 2017 budget request supports $9.6 billion of o&m for the national guard and the army reserve. for the army national guard it's

2017 o&m request is nominally higher than the 2016 funding levels. consistent with the regular army it looks to grow, sustain the force and sustain operational requirements. like the other services, the budget is also suppressed in this request. for the u.s. army reserve, they are $2.7 o&m budget request supports the functional big glades, three installations and over 800 reserve centers in the professional education and specialized skills training for its 195,000 soldiers. this request is consistent with fy-'16 funding levels and also shares in the departmentwide risk of reducing funding levels for facility sustainment. having spent a few minutes discussing the near term readiness, i would now like to transition to the army's

modernization accounts. this is an area where the army has had to take risk as funding levels vz have come down. since 2013 they have made resourced decisions to remain under the budget control act and the bipartisan act by the terminating programs and delays developmental efforts on the high-combat ground vehicle and full on the ground tactical networking. the research and development acquisition budget requests $22.6 billion as a decrease of $1.4 billion from the 2016 enacted levels. this $5.8 decrease is largely attributed to the budget of 2015 as the army had to make some difficult choices between current and future readiness. we assess that this risk will continue until we achieve a greater balance between

readiness in strength and modernization early into the next decade. the fy-'17 request includes a modest start and new program terminations. the army's request continues to support aviation offsetting the inherit risks associated with the army's aviation restructuring initiative. funds incremental improvements to the combat vehicle fleets and begins efforts to increase the mobility for brigade combat teams. the fy-'17 budget request continues a relatively funding stable level to drive down future risk, find new capabilities with game-changing potential and increase efficiencies and affordable to equip the force of 2025. our funding table on this chart shows the inconsistent level of rda funding from year to year since fiscal year '13 and

represents and average funding level that is on the average 18% of the army's total budget. this reduced investment in army future readiness is where the army has assumed risk. additionally, the chart represents the largest equipment portfolios and the proportion of distribution for funding for each. what i ask you to take away is that the army encompasses a broad modernization effort to be capable and successful in a number of diverse missions in support of the combatant commanders. our focus remains on the soldier and the squad, providing aviation and combat vehicles that provide mobility, protection and firepower. to mission command that enables situational awareness and networking. to the soldier portfolio that provides the individual soldier with survival blgt and increased feasibility.

breaking down the army's modernization portfolio, i start with procurement and follow with research development evaluation. for the procurement appropriation, our fy '17 of $15.1 billion is $1.3 billion decrease from the fy-'16 enacted levels. the largest portion of our procurement program remains aviation. the fy-'17 request continues with the restructuring initiative. however, with the recent publication of the commission report, the army is setting the recommendations and assessing the impact to the fy-'17 funding program. the army continues to maximize buying power by requesting approvals of multi-year contracts for the blackhawk model and the apache-e model. these will produce substantial savings and stability for these critical programs. additionally the fleet

conversion will be completed in fy-'18. finally, the fy-'17 includes critical investments in aircraft survivalability to defeat advances in our adversaries capabilities. in the mission command portfolio, supporting network modernization, the army has committed to developing and fielding an advanced technical network as part of the modernized army network that provides security insufficient while providing robust data communications from the theater to tactical edge. the network supports the operating force interfaces with the generating force to provide reliable cyber security and connectivity with our joint force partners. in our combat vehicle portfolio, the army continues to provide incremental improvements to the mobility, protection and lethality of its battle tested and proven vehicle fleets.

for the abrams tank -- armor packages and data link to the m1 alpha 3 set three. for the fighter vehicle, our request includes track and suspension, power train and electrical system upgrades to host technology and network insertions. the army's request fulfills holding the brigade set, electrical upgrades and converting the flat bottom haul to part of the 4th brigade set. i also request fleet modifications, training devices and the filling of a .30 millimeter weapon system. the fy-'17 system has 36 ammunition carriers. the full rate production decision is anticipated in january of 2017.

the joint light tactical vehicle or jltv remains the centerpiece of the army's tactical wheel modernization strategy preplacing approximately one-third of the light wheel fleet by 2013. the fy-'17 buys just over 150 vehicles where fy-'16 was just over 700 vehicles. the request for the funding was about the same as the 2016 budget. of this amount we are preserved $2.2 billion of it for science and technology efforts. this includes funding to refine concepts, requirements and key technologies for the army's future ground combat vehicle. our rsnt request includes

feasibility of developing an affordable medium aircraft with greatly enhanced speed and distance capabilities and continues the successes we have had in the high energy laser technology focused on defeating any number of airborne threats ranging from mortars to cruise missiles. in other major rtne categories, we are requesting funding for key programs. for the abrams, bradley and striker programs, funding our engineer change proposals will address power deficients, improve protection and provide the availability to future network and enabling space and power cooling improvements. the army's integrated air and defense missile defense program will provide advanced capabilities to the army by allowing transformation to a network centric system of systems capability that integrates september sore and weapons with battle command system engagement operation

centers. the armored multipurpose vehicle will replace the vietnam era family of vehicles with the army brigade combat teams. critical design review is scheduled for the third quarter of this year and 29 full system prototype vehicles will undergo testing. we remain committed to tim proved turbine engine for the blackhawk and apache fleets. our goal is to replace these 1970 era engines to meet increased operational requirements flying at 6,000 feet altitude at 95 degrees. to protect our air crews in the aviary fleet, we are requesting almost $100 million in the common infrared counter measure system or circum to provide spherical protection in order to defeat an infrared missile threat. we also request funding for assured positioning, navigating

and timing technologies that enable mission command and network operations in conditions that impede or deny access to global positioning systems. to address the growing cyber threats, we are requesting almost $75 million for army cyber efforts to advance and deploy cyberspace and electromagnetic capabilities. this will ensure the security of army networking systems and networks and exploit adversarial networks and systems. other portions of the rtne request include long range precision fires that will provide the army both rocket and artillery extended range capabilities. and two new starts for the army infantry, a ground mobile vehicle for a nine-man infantry squad and a mobile protective fire power that enhances direct fire capabilities of infantry brigade combat teams. wrapping up the modernization

portion of this briefing and to give you an requested of the quantity of items we are purchasing, this chart lists the procurement programs valued at greater than $200 million each. in descending order, many of which i have spoken about throughout this briefing. as i stated previously, one of the keys to readiness is installation readiness and investing in the army's infrastructure. i discussed previously during the portion of this briefing the reduced funding levels to sustain the army's existing infrastructure. our request for mil-con is reduced as well. as you can see, fy-17 is one of the smallest budgets in recent years and the army will fund only 29 mil-con construction projects totaling $805 million. and the army family account which totals $527 million, there is some growth primarily to support two new construction projects for new family housing

construction projects in korea totaling $200 million. the army's fy-'17 budget supports convenience of excess properties at previous backed locations. withen the army's budget request, these are funded mainly outside the appropriations. the serious request includes $71 million for the arlington national cemetery to fund day to day operations and 29 restoration and modernization projects. the army's also requesting $551 million for the congressionally mandates chemical demilitarization program. fy-'17 provides chemical agent destruction pilot plans and the chemical emergency preparedness plans including both sites and the surrounding community. the army has been managing large

overseas contingency fund budgets since 2001. as illustrated earlier in this briefing, this has been an account ebb and flowed as contingency efforts have contracted and expanded over time. the budget request remains small compared to past years. this year's multicomponent request totals $25 billion when including the funding and past due accounts and the flexibility for base readiness requirements provided by the bba. the 2017 occu request requires freedom sentinel in qua tar, operation spartan shield in several communities. operation resolve in iraq and the initiative in europe. this request also includes approximately $3.4 billion for the afghan security force fund. the $2.2 billion mill portion

primarily supports mobilized soldiers and the recent decision by the president to extend in strength levels in afghanistan. this represents about two-thirds of the army's request and supports the transportation, force protection, support contracts, mobilization requirements and reset of equipment returning from theater. and a small portion of this request is for replacement of battle losses, ammunition consumption in theater and prepositioned stocks in europe. one should note that in most areas of this program the request is comparable to the fy-'16 funding levels -- and the growth in the european resurgence initiative funding request illustrated on the next

slide. the european reassurance initiative or reri assures our nato allies into resurgent russia and constitutes much of the growth in the army's request. of the total $3.4 billion requested by d.o.d. it accounts for over $2.8 billion to support the rotation of an armored brigade combat team and its enablers. currently in europe conducting exercises with our nato allies and partners and a full armored brigade combat team static said for army prepositioned stocks. as we prepare this question, we were driven to make some difficult choices as fiscal pressures represented in the bipartisan budget act of 2015 funding levels drove the army to reduce funding in some critical areas. to help mitigate these fiscal pressures, the army continued to become more efficient and better postured to support the combatant commanders while

funding levels trend down. we have reduced four structure and military strength as well as a number of civilian personnel and the amount of funding intend on contracted support. modernization efforts have been leaned and our investment in installations and facilities has been reduced. i want to conclude our perception by introducing key challenges that face america's army and need to be the backdrop for any future and current budgetary discussions. in just the past several years we have seen a number of emerging operations that required american soldiers to deploy and operate for extended period of time for contingency operations. some of these were not even anticipated a year earlier. with the resurgent russia, a rising china, mall aligned iranian influence, the threatening north career ya and continued counter terrorism operations, the world security environment is changing so fast that the army needs predictable and consistent funding across its entire funding prort folio

year after year to keep pace with the changes to protect both current and future threats to america's national security interests. i can't overemphasize that in order to have formidable ground force capable of generating the combat power to support or combatant commanders today and tomorrow, the army must achieve a greater balance between readiness and strength and modernization. each linked to one another. reducing funding in modernization and equipping accounts put the army's technological overmatch ed account at risk. the infrastructure accounts will further impact readiness and larger investments in the future. marginalizing one component over the other may net a near term solution but create an unacceptable risk in the outyears. the u.s. army needs to retain

force structure and strength readiness and cutting edge equipment all critical components to our national security. this fy-'17 budget requests supports readiness as the army's number one priority. ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the formal portion of my brief. >> ladies and gentlemen, we have seven minutes for q&a. let's follow-up to get to your questions. we'll start with you. >> jen jetson. i want to dive farther into the occu funds. my first question is, will we see more than 34,000 presence in the european area of operations as a result of this? and if you could let us know what will be funded between these building capacities, what are you doing with the $50 million? is there anything in

prepositions stock? just any more details you can provide would be great. >> sure, that's a loaded question. a lot of effort there. so the -- we are going to do heel to toe rotations. no gaps or seams between when one unit rotates in and departs and another one follows behind it. so there will be a greater troop presence there. there's more than just an abct. there are some enablers in the set you were referring to. so there are a -- many more exercises today than there were even a year ago. so there's some good activity partnering with our allies. i know they are really excited and appreciative of this. so we do have a very detailed eri briefing that we co provide you some more details on that but in general terms i think that's somewhat of what you're

asking for, yes, sir. >> reporter: will you shed a little light on the aircraft procurement accounts. you have a $1.3 billion cut in total army procurement but a $1.3 billion cut in aviation. the numbers should not go from 39 to 22 blackhawks from 107 to 36. from 64 to 52. but your document says modernization of the aircraft. how much would they be cut if they weren't a priority? and why is aviation bearing so much of the burden? >> we did -- within what we can afford to do in our modernization accounts, we tried to keep those -- we kept them on the industrial base and retained stability there. what our occupational requirements were.

and so -- obviously, we had to balance that against the entire portfolio. so -- we had great advantage with the black hawk and apache. so as we tried to balance along the rda account, all the procurement, when we say we prioritize aviation, it was prioritized within the account. so by compareson to everything else within our portfolio, aviation seemed to -- we were able to keep it at a level commence rate with what we could be comfortable with. >> but it's a $2.3 billion and total procurement of $1.3 billion. so it seems like aviation is bearing the entire load.

>> i will tell you we recognize there were reductions to the aviation portfolio. that's a big portfolio and we had to make up some ground in terms of total reductions as we built this budget. but i don't think it was any more or less reduced in some of our other components of the procurement or the rda portfolio. so we tried to strike that balance as best we could. >> yes, ma'am. >> reporter: i wanteded to ask you about the commission on the future of the army. they pointed out that the army is has short falls in missile defense and air defense. and they suggested tradeoffs, like reducing infantry brigades. is that something you are considering as well? >> that's a great question. right now today the army's 2017

budget is not accounting for any recommendations from the national commission on the future of the army. what we are doing is we have -- we are steadying the recommendations pretty extensively. all three components together as a unified team and we're looking at the recommendations and based upon some decisions about the recommendations and we will determine how we're going to implement those recommendations. so there is potential in the 2017 budget to change but for now we are still studying the recommendations. >> this will be the last question. >> issabastian springer here. can you go through the portfolio, this is not all war-related from what it looks like. is there a specific reason why you're picking it? >> so, i will tell you, let me get back to you. are you going to come to the roundtable tomorrow? let us give you a really good

answer for that. >> there's talk of converting to a brigade striker team? >> that's part of the conversion. >> what's the rational behind that? >> some loan operational capabilities that we're looking at. and two -- just some other factors. >> that was a short one. one more. >> reporter: john harper with national defense magazine. is there money in the budget for the recognizance vehicle. >> let me ask my friends over there. my staff. no, nothing right now. >> ladies and gentlemen, general horlander. thank you for coming today. the public of affairs will host a roundtable tomorrow,

wednesday, at 1430. general horlander and other key staff personnel will be there to answer questions and address what we talked ab today. if you have questions on it, see some of my staff. come see me and i'll give you the contract information. thank you very much. supreme court justice antonin scalia's body is lying in repose today. the public is allowed into the viewing and c-span has live coverage throughout the today until 8:00 p.m. eastern. justice scalia's funeral is tomorrow and c-span will have live coverage of the funeral mass at the catholic basilica here in washington, d.c. vice president joe biden is one of the dignitaries attending. you'll be able to watch it live tomorrow morning starting at 11:00 eastern. and coming up tonight here on c-span 3 we are showing you

american history tv in primetime. the american historical association's annual conference with panels on the history of the death penalty, the 1916 election and the history of terrorism. that's tonight here on c-span 3 at 8:00 eastern. every weekend on "american history tv" on c-span3, programs highlight the american story. some include saturday afternoon at 2:00 eastern, president woodrow wilson nominated boston lawyer louis brandeis to the court and became the first jewish-american to be seated on the court. brandeis university in mississippi hosted a panel including ruth bader ginsburg to discuss his contributions to society. and then professors joann freeman who studies early

american politics and brian ballow who specializes in the 20th century discusses the partisanship from the founding era to present day. sunday morning at 10:00 on "road to the white house rewind" from the 2000 campaign, a south carolina republican primary debate featuring texas governor george w. bush, arizona senator john mccain and allen keys. cnn hosted the event in columbia and larry king moderated. governor bush won in south carolina halting senator mccain's momentum and he went on to secure the republican nomination. and at 6:00, american artifacts looks at selections of objects left at the vietnam memorial wall including letters, photographs, artwork and medals. the election includes 4,000 items all stored at the national parks resource center in maryland. for the complete earn history tv schedule, go to cspan.org.

♪ i am trying still to decide which candidate to support. i'm trying to decide between the governors who have executive experience or some of the other candidates like ted cruz and marco rubio. >> the most important issue to me is national service. there are more than 5 million young americans ready to step forward and serve their country in programs like the peace corps and youth build. president obama unveiled last month his 2017 budget request of $4 trillion. included in the budget is the pentagon's proposal of $587 billion for defense funding. this is about 40 minutes.

good morning, everyone. it is our pleasure to brief you on the air force's 2017 budget request. next slide. this is what we'll cover today. we'll start with the strategic framework we used to balance capability capacity and readiness across a full spectrum of operations. we'll talk about the great work our airmen are do i thiing to s the joint force. we'll talk about the reduced funding levels and the importance of adequate, predictable budgets to resource the air force now and in our future. our requests for overseas operations and ocu funding but we'll start with the strategic

framework. next slide. every year we use a very deliberate process to make every dollar count. because all five core missions listed on the slide are all critical to the joint force in our nation. our challenge in an uncertain resource environment is to maintain balance across the five core missions ensuring we are ready today but also ready 20 years from now. what we have learned in the last few years, the world doesn't take a break. and the demand for air force capabilities continues to grow. so every year we make the necessary budget adjustments. and every year we develop the set of guiding principles to focus limited resource. this year's guiding principles are listed on the slide for your review. they are grounded by the air force's commitment to our joint partners and will be accomplished across the total force, active guard and reserve. it's also our commitment to our airmen who continue to do

amazing things in very tough conditions. it's our responsibility to give them the best training and the best equipment so they can windy icively now and in the future. in fy-'17 we met most of those objectives but still had to make tough choices to live within the bipartisan budget limits. next slide. make no stake about it, we are still the world's greatest air force because of our people. our imitate great pride and service and its remarkable what they accomplish every day. today with the joint and coalition partners, airmen provide around the clock global vigilance, global reach and global power in defense of our nation and our allies. in fact, the joint force depends on the air force capabilities and requires air power at the beginning, middle and end of every operation. in 2015 our airmen produced amazing results and some of those highlights are listed on

the slide. which reflect a total force effort, active duty, guard and reserve airmen, military and civilian. they're doing great things for our nation in very tough conditions. and the world continues to change. if you look on the chart, the red circles represent where we thought we would be in 2012 and the blue circles represent today's reality. in 2012 we thought we would have an opportunity to take a knee, to rest, train and reconstitute our forces. however, the realities in the middle east and europe have required a persistent presence by our air minute. next slide. this year as we commemorate the 25th anniversary of operation desert storm, it's important to know that 25 years of continuous combat operations have taken a toll on our airmen, their readiness and the equipment they

operate. the reference to desert storm is important because that's the air force most people know. the reality is we are not the same air force as we were back then. 25 years ago we had 134 combat fire squadrants. today we have 55. back then we had 946,000 airmen, military and civilians. while today we have a total force of approximately 664,000. then we had approximately 8600 aircraft. today we have approximately 5500. right now the average age of our aircraft is over 27 years. in fact, 21 fleets qualified for antique license plates in the state of virginia. and right now our readiness is near all-time lows. all of this at a time when the world remains busy in the demand for air force capabilities continues to grow. since august 2014 the air force

continues to lead the response against isil and isis. and the airmen are still deploying to afghanistan. we are facing a resurgent russia, china and north korea remains unpredictable. the tech not and capability advances america had 25 years ago are closing fast. space and cyber domains are becoming more congested and contested. advanced air defenses and radars are becoming more common. and competitors continue to invest in new technology in their own fifth generation aircraft. the bottom line, the capability gap is shrinking and we must continue our efforts to reverse that. next slide. this chart illustrates the impact of living with reduced funding and why predictable budgets are so important as we look to the future. for example, an fy-'12 we said

our fy-'17 requirement would be $170 billion. this year's budget request is $17 billion less than that planning number. and at bca levels it's $23 billion less. we all remember the funding gaps that you see are highlighted in red on the chart. and what it represents is loss capacity, loss capability and reduced readiness to support the joint force. so we all remember when sequestration hit in fy-'13 and imposed large, immediate cuts to require drastic action to make it to the end of the fiscal year. we deferred aircraft may not neans and critical infrastructure and had to furlough our civilians for six days. after starting fy-'14 and the government shutdown in planning for the second year of sequestration, we are greateful for the relief congress provided

for fiscal years '14 and '15. it was a great start to protect our top modernization priorities, the kc-46 and lrsb. but it wasn't enough. we still had to make tough choices. choices that were necessary to save the billions needed to live within the budget limits. to pay the bill, we attempted a four structure and reduced military strength and continued to take risks based on support facilities and much needed military construction. and if you remember in fy-'15 we sacrificed near term readiness for future modernization. however, soon after we submitted our fy-'15 budget the world changed. and the demand for air force capabilities increased. so when our fy-'16 request we made the necessary adjustments for the air force that we needed. and it was our best attempt to

balance near term readiness with future modernization. last year we set our fy-'16 budget starts the recovery for the air force we need. thanks to this year's bipartisan budget act, we avoided sequestration and the devastating impacts for two more years. again, we are grateful for the passage of this year's bipartisan budget act to allow us to fund readiness components at executable levels. we are able to retain legacy four structure and triple the number of ammunitions compared to fy-'16. both important to up sure the right level of capacity to support current operations in growing demand. we preserve our top modernization priorities to the kc-46, f-35 and lsrb and further investments in nuclear, space and cyber. most important, we stop the downsizing and start right-sizing the total force end strength to cover key shortfalls to include cyber, nuclear,

maintenance manpower and the rpa community. next slide. so again, our fy-'16 budget starts the recovery for the air force we need. our fy-'17 budget request is consistent with that plan and builds on those efforts. again, you can see in the blue box that bipartisan budget act levels welcome us is train four structure to sustain ops and commander needs. we continue to fly weapon sustainment to near capacity. we'll continue our investments in ranges, simulators, advanced weapon schools and a shear combat exercise like red flag and green flag remains strong. we'll be able to fund munitions to capacity to support current ops and will start to rebuild inventories. we keep two of the three modernization programs on track, the kc-46 and the long-range strike bomber. but unfortunately we had to

defer five f-35s within limits. ed we will continue to advance investments in space and cyber. and we'll improve the rpa enterprise with military bonuses adding in palates and funding in 60 isr combat lines. we'll continue our efforts to build the new combat risky helicopter and will fund air force one recapitalization. most important, we keep our commitment to our airmen. we stop the downsizing in fy-'16 and starting restoring critical message sets. those efforts will continue in fy-'17. this budget also includes a $1.6% salary increase. this continues recovery and gives us a larger and better equipped force. however, we still had to make choices to live within the bba

limits and worry because sequestration remains the law for fy-'18 and out. now i would like to draw your attention to the red box. it reflects the tough choices we had to make at bba limits. in fy-'17 to live within the bba limits we fell short in three areas. modernization, infrastructure and people. without additional funding, we'll defer five f-35s, some aircraft modifications and delay the complete of the c1h recapitalization efforts. as a result, our infrastructure will continue to suffer impacting both readiness and quality of life. as well as driving high replacement costs in the future. our i.t. infrastructure also needs additional funding to ensure we keep pace with the

new, more complex programs that reside on its backbone. as i mentioned, we'll restore active duty and strength to 317,000. however, current demands indicate more growth is necessary so we will fill capability gaps to support combatant commanders. of course, as we look ahead to fy-'18, the budget control act and sequestration remains the law. the sequestration returns in fy '18 we'll be faced with another multibillion shortfall to solve in one year. it will be unable to plan for the capabilities we'll need in the future. to pay the bill, we'll have to consider all options such as reducing force structure, delay an even more modernization programs, short-changing the readiness accounts, delaying investments in the strategic assets such as nuclear, space, isr and cyber. infrastructure would continue to suffer and we could not avoid impacts to our people.

giving current demand and change in geopolitical conditions, we must continue the recovery to support combatant commander requirements and provide our airmen the training and equipment they need to win decisively. now we'll look at the details of the fy-'17 budget. you'll see the bar on the left represents our total air force budget for fy-'17 to include active duty, guard and reserve components. the top block is what we refer to as non-blue, which is a portion of the air force budget that is not directly under our control. but managed by other departments or agencies. the remainder of the budget or the air force blue baseline budget is the focus for today's brief. in brackets you'll see the air force blue budget for fy-'17 is approximately $120.4 billion which is roughly 23% the

d.o.d.'s 2017 budget. of the $124 billion approximately $76 billion or 63% supports day to day operations. military and civilian pay make up 54% of day-to-day operating costs. flying hours, weapons system sustainment and missions executed at the mission command totals 38% of the funding. facility requirements and installation support represent the remaining 8% of the costs. the day boxes highlight the procurement and largest programs. these programs total approximately $26 billion or about 60% of our investment programs. so you can see that the largest portions of our budget are in people, readiness and modernization. so when forced to take sharp reductions, we simply can't avoid impacts in these areas.

now we'll look at each appropriation starting with military personnel. the fy-'17 military personnel budget is 24% of our total request and supports a total four-strain to 492,000. as stated, we will grow the force to address key capability gaps in cyber and maintenance career fields. in fy-'17 the budget requests continues funding for the 492,000 total force airmen. as i mentioned, current demands indicate more growth is necessary. so we will continue to assess those capability gaps and where they exist will grow end strength to meet that demand. to support the growing demand we'll invest in the training pipeline by adding approximately 100 basic and tech training

instructors. this will support 26,000 sessions, increeding 2900 new airmen over fy-'16 levels. increases to officer training school, the air the air force academy and rotc will bring in 4800 officers in fy-'17. we'll also begin the implementation enlisting rpa pilots into the community. this budget also requests -- this budget also includes a request to offer retention incentives for a variety of career fields. through these actions we can preserve capabilities in the legacy force, grow maintainers and increase the number ofrpa pilots. we'll continue to strengthen the nuclear enterprise and cyber operations. the request also includes a 1.6% pay raise and we will continue to fund vital people programs in

our operation and maintenance accounts shown on the next satellite. the operation and maintenance budget supports the full spectrum of operations as well as people and quality-of-life programs. for readiness, this request funds flying hours to executable levels and weapons systems sustainment to near capacity. it ensures advanced weapons schools and combat exercises like red flag and green flag are fully funded to help in our long-term effort to restore full spectrum readiness. we'll continue to fund relief, increased manpower and more time for peacetime training recovers once these conditions are met we expect full spectrum readiness n eight to ten years. this budget also supports 60 rpa

combat lines while sustained critical space programs. it also includes funding to maintain 26 cyber mission teams supporting our effort to grow to 39 teams. we will maintain capacity and support of today's operation by retaining and funding the a-10 and the ec 130 weapons systems. to allow more skilled maintainers to transition to the f-35 force, we will fund contract maintenance at our active duty training units this budget takes care of our most important asset, our people, by expanding the sexual assault prevention and response program, providing child care and youth programs, funding tuition assistance as well as insulation airman readiness centers. we also requested a pay raise of 1.6% for our civilian airmen. while the bba funds most of our onm programs mentioned on a

previous slide, we continue to take risks in facilities in our it infrastructure. both of those need funding. now we'll discuss military construction. for our military construction we focus on new mission beddown, combat and commander requirements and we're increasing our investment in previously deferred projects for current mission ops. for the active air force, this includes new mission beddowns for the kc-46, f-35 and combat rescue helicopter. new construction for quality of life includes two dorm projects and a new fitness center. we also invested $41 million for the nuclear enterprise. for the air force reserve our request includes funding for high priority projects for the kc-46 and the c-17. the air national guard request includes funding to support the c-17, the f-22 as well as a new fire station.

finally, the air force continues to fund new construction for the combat-and-commands to support critical mission requirements. as we mentioned since fy-'12, we have deferred a number of current mission projects. with additional funding, we could execute up to $464 million in new construction. next slide. research and development tests and evaluation is where big ideas make the leap from just an to the technology that we use everyday: just imagine our world without gps. as our competitors continue to close the capability gap, we can't afford to let them catch up. because of this, we increased funding by $1.6 billion from what we requested in fy-'16. this represents a two year increase of $3.6 billion.

again, our approach remains consistent with what we said last year, we continue to focus on advancing the nuclear and space enterprise with funding for ground-based strategic defense ininclude icbm guidance propulsion, security and command-and-control applications. this request also funds upgrades for our b-2 bomber fleet. we will also provide funding for the development of domestic launch systems to reduce our reliance on foreign-made rocket engines. we'll continue to invest in future capabilities and new technology with funding for the jr. st j-stars recap program. finally remain focused in our top recapitalization program, the kc-46, f-35 and lrsb as well as the combat rescue helicopter and replacement for air force o one. we'll now discuss procurement.

next slide. our fy-'17 procurement budget preserves our top modernization programs, sustains our space procurement strategy, invests in the nuclear enterprise and funds munitions to support ongoing operations. unfortunately in this budget was had to sacrifice modernization for current readiness. as a result we were force to delay five f-35s. some fourth-generation modifications and delay completion of the recapitalization effort for the c-130h. delay in modernization has become a trend that allows our competitors to close the capability gap. for example, since fy-'12 we deferred 75 f-35s. this equates to approximately four squadrons, the capacity and capability needed for future high-end threats. this budget does procure 43 of the 48 planned f-35s, 15 kc-46s

and 11 c-130 js by continuing modernization efforts for our fifth and four generation aircraft. the request also includes modernization for the f-22 and radar grades for the f-16. as base becomes more contested and congested, the air force remains committed to advancing our capabilities to operate in this environment, we'll continue to block buys of the ahs satellites five and six. this budget also supports our goal of maintaining access to space with funding for five launch services, three of which will be competitive launch opportunities. for munitions, we remain challenged by the pace of current operations therefore we fund preferred munitions to capacity to support come bath and commander needs. finally we enhance protected communications and

command-and-control assets listed on the chart. the next slide shows quantities by platform. so these are the planned procurement quantities for this budget which shows both base and oco. our procurement quantities remain fair fair and constant however we have put emphasis on replacing or replenishing our weapons inventory. in particular, we have increased our oco j-dam quantities by 10,000 and small diameter by more than 4,000. in ex-we will discuss our fy-17 oco submission. our fy-'17 oco budget request continues to support combat and commanders' most urgent requirements. it reflects our environments for operations in afghanistan, iraq, and the fight against isil and isis our oco request also supports allies in europe through the european reassurance initiative, or eri. this year's request is $12.3

billion and supports the efforts on the slide by funding flying hours, weapons systems sustainment, eight rpa combat lines and the day to day combat for six locations. in addition to the munitions buys included in our baseline budget request, oco funding is requested to replace almost 24,000 preferred munitions totaling $716 million, lastly, this request funds mill con airfield projects and afri come and supports structure in airfield, aircraft storage and munition storage facilities. this budget also supports our airmen with proper pay and allowances and provides the best equipment possible to win today's fight next slide. so as we wrap up today's briefing, here are the points i

want to leave you with, this year's budget is based on strategy, a strategy that balances capability, capacity, and readiness across the full spectrum of operations. air force priorities as reflected in its budget remain the same, taking care of people, striking a balance between readiness and modernization and making every $count, we are grateful for the temporary budget relief provided by by the bipartisan budget act which allows us to restore in strength, fund all readiness components and continue our top three modernization programs but at reduced rates for the f-35. it also allows us to sustain capacity to meet combat and commanders' requirements most urgent needs. it resources strategic assets in nuclear space and the isr missionaries. but even with the budget relief, uncertainty looms and bca caps return in fy-'18.

this at a time when the air force is one of the smallest, oldest and least ready fleets in our history. we've learned from the lessons of sequestration, it's time to apply the lessons, repeal the budget control act and give america the air force it deserves both now and in the future. next slide. this is where you can find more information in the details about our budget so thank you for your time and now we'll take your questions. let's start with you. >> i'm with "air force times." the f-22 buys were curtailed due to budget concerns and now we're seeing the same thing happen with the f-35. what's the flexibility with the program? how many aircraft can actually be cut from the block buys before the air force starts to get worried about readiness and capability? >> well, the f-35 program is

still 763 -- >> 1763. >> right, 1763. so this just delays that ramp to getting to 1763. as we mentioned earlier, any sign that you delay that type of capability, we talked about the delay from fy-'12 to '16, that represented four squadrons of capability. >> is cost affordability something the air force needs to place more emphasis on when choosing a sixth generation fighter? >> we're always looking at cost and how to keep them low and that's a big priority for our air force, making every dollar count, we have several initiatives throughout the acquisition process to make sure we keep costs reasonable. >> i'm inside the air force. with j-stars, your document alludes to an affordable strategy. what does that plan includes exactly? >> so for j-stars, we -- the

program's had some struggles and we've extended the risk reduction phase of the program to lower overall risk, it delays emd roughly a year and we'll get the program back on track. the service cost position right now is being looked at, we'll have an addendum to that for lack of a better word. we won't do a new surface cost position but they are going to modify and add an addendum to the program. >> i'm sorry, would that plan, is it going to factor an unmanned platform at all? >> that i do not know. >> i'm with bloomberg news. how much did it cost to retain the a-10 through 21, i guess it is and, two, if you match up the five-year plan for the long-range bomber between 17 and 20, there's about a $3 billion detriment. your critics are going to say uh-oh, the program is slipping, can you explain that and tap